Follow up on the Scott story

(Photo: CBS News)
Scott McClellan's "war collaborators"   in the corporate media. Referred to by McClellan in his new memoir, "What   Happened," as "deferential, complicit enablers" of the Bush administration's   war propaganda.

  No sooner had Bush's ex-press secretary (now author) Scott McClellan accused President Bush and his former collaborators of misleading our country into Iraq than the squeals of protest turned into a mighty roar. I'm not talking about the vitriol directed at him by former White House colleagues like Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer. I'm talking about McClellan's other war collaborators: the movers and shakers in corporate media. The people McClellan refers to in his book as "deferential, complicit enablers" of Bush administration war propaganda. ( I put the rest of the article on anoter page, so click the continue reading ..)

One after another, news stars defended themselves with the tired old    myth that no one doubted the Iraq WMD (weapons of mass destruction) claims at   the time. The yarn about hindsight being 20/20 was served up more times than   a Reverend Wright clip on Fox News.

    Katie Couric, whose coverage on CBS of the Iraq troop surge has been almost   fawning, was one of the few stars to be candid about preinvasion coverage, saying   days ago, "I think it's one of the most embarrassing chapters in American   journalism." She spoke of "pressure" from corporate management,   not just Team Bush, to "really squash any dissent." Then a co-host   of NBC "Today," she says network brass criticized her for challenging   the administration.

    NBC execs apparently didn't complain when - two weeks into the invasion - Couric   thanked a Navy commander for coming on the show, adding, "And I just want   you to know, I think Navy SEALs rock!"

    This is a glorious moment for the American public. We can finally see those   who abandoned reporting for cheerleading and flag-waving and cheap ratings having   to squirm over their role in sending other parents' kids into Iraq. I say "other   parents' kids" because I never met any bigwig among those I worked with   in TV news who had kids in the armed forces.

    Given how TV networks danced to the White House tune sung by the Roves and   Fleischers and McClellans in the first years of W's reign, it's fitting that   it took the words of a longtime Bush insider to force their self-examination   over Iraq. Top media figures had shunned years of    well-documented criticism of their Iraq failure as religiously as they shunned   war critics in 2003.

    Speaking of religious, it wasn't until two days ago that retired NBC warhorse   Tom Brokaw was able to admit on-air that Bush's push toward invasion was "more   theology than anything else." On day one of the war, it was anchor Brokaw   who turned to an Admiral and declared, "One of the things that we don't   want to do is destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, because in a few days we're   going to own that country."

    Asked this week about the charge that media transmitted war propaganda, Brokaw   blamed the White House and its "unbelievable ability to control the flow   of information at any time, but especially during the time that they're preparing   to go to war." This is an old canard: The worst censors prewar were not   governments, but major outlets that chose to exclude and smear dissenting experts.

    Wolf Blitzer, whose persona on CNN is that of a carnival barker, defended his   network's coverage: "I think we were pretty strong. But certainly, with   hindsight, we could have done an even better job." Coverage might have   been better if CNN news chief Eason Jordan hadn't gotten a Pentagon "thumbs-up"   on the retired generals they featured. Or if Jordan hadn't gone on the air to   dismiss a dissenting WMD expert: "Scott Ritter's chameleon-like behavior   has really bewildered a lot of people.... US officials no longer give Scott   Ritter much credibility."

    ABC anchor Charlie Gibson, the closest thing to a Fox News anchor at a big   three network, took offense at McClellan: "I think the media did a pretty   good job." He claimed "there was a lot of skepticism raised"   about Colin Powell's prewar UN speech. Media critic Glenn Greenwald called Gibson's   claim "one of the falsest statements ever uttered on TV" - and made   his point using Gibson's    unskeptical Powell coverage at the time.

    In February 2003, there was huge mainstream media skepticism about Powell's   UN speech ... overseas. But US TV networks banished antiwar perspectives in   the crucial two weeks surrounding that error-filled speech. FAIR    studied all on-camera sources on the nightly ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS newscasts:   Less than 1 percent - 3 out of 393 sources - were antiwar. Only 6 percent were   skeptical sources. This at a time when 60 percent of Americans in polls wanted   more time for diplomacy and inspections.

    I worked 10-hour days inside MSNBC's newsroom during this period as senior   producer of Phil Donahue's primetime show (canceled three weeks before the war   while the network's most-watched program). Trust me: too much skepticism over   war claims was a punishable offense. I and all other Donahue producers were   repeatedly ordered by top management to book panels that favored the pro-invasion   side. I watched a fellow producer get chewed out for booking a 50-50 show.

    At MSNBC, I heard Scott Ritter smeared - on-air and off - as a paid mouthpiece   of Saddam Hussein. After we had war skeptic and former US Attorney General Ramsey   Clark on the show, we learned he was on some sort of network blacklist.

    When MSNBC terminated Donahue, it was expected we'd be replaced by a nightly   show hosted by Jesse Ventura. But that show never really launched. Ventura says   it was because he, like Donahue, opposed the Iraq invasion; he was paid millions   for not appearing. Another MSNBC star, Ashleigh Banfield, was demoted and then   lost her job after criticizing the first weeks of "very sanitized"   war coverage. With every muzzling, self-censorship tended to proliferate.

    I'm no defender of Scott McClellan. Some may say he has blood on his hands   - and that he hasn't earned any kind of redemption.

    But, as someone who still burns with anger over what I witnessed inside TV   news during that crucial historical moment, I'm trying my best to enjoy this   falling out among thieves and liars.

   

»

 

---

Jeff Cohen is the founder of FAIR, and author of the new book, "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media."

Comments

 

     

The sad thing is that you

            Sat, 05/31/2008 - 05:31 — Ken Tomasello (not verified)            

The sad thing is that you didn't need the facts to be able to tell that the administration was lying. If you accepted everything they said as a fact the contradictions were obvious. Not only did the people in the news industry stop thinking. The entire nation stopped thinking. Admittedly I haven't read all of the precious posts, but I have been hearing an awful lot about what a poor job the media did. The public will write history to absolve themselves of all responsibility.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

Does anyone remember the

            Sat, 05/31/2008 - 04:04 — nfahr (not verified)            

Does anyone remember the moment Colbert confronted Bush in front of the sycophantic news media and actually had the courage and audacity to speak his mind? With the President nearby? And the lapdog newsmedia in the audience in their tuxedos not getting it? I think it is one of the finest moments in this last decade. At last! Someone spoke up? A Marine Mom whose son volunteered in Iraq.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

I listened to SCott Ritter

            Sat, 05/31/2008 - 03:38 — Anonymous (not verified)            

I listened to SCott Ritter well on the run up to war. I can nearly verbatum tell anyone what he said and have. predicting the reaction of the administration despite the evidence on the march up to war. He was right as rain that there were no WMD. HE said that before the armies went in and could not find. It is to the network media's discredit that they shunned him. I don't listen to the mass media. They have nothing to say to me. I don't view their adds either of course.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

I feel nothing for contempt

            Sat, 05/31/2008 - 03:06 — Anonymous (not verified)            

I feel nothing for contempt for him - too many years of being considered a "conspiracy nut", unpatriotic, stupid, etc. The media helped create that atmosphere for all these years - basically muzzled any and all creative/critical thinking in this country - again, contempt is all I feel for him and his ilk.............

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

When Mr. Cohen are you going

            Sat, 05/31/2008 - 02:31 — Lame  Cherry (not verified)            

When Mr. Cohen are you going to get over the aphrodisiac of the Donahue which still has Bill Moyers stoned and start asking the real questions which some bloggers like myself have been exposing and no one will touch as it will bring down the very establishment you serve? Why is it the DOD confirming that Russian GRU forces loaded 2 shiploads of WMD's for Saddam and dumped them into the Indian Ocean is replaced by your ranting about the MSM? Those chemical weapons have left a trail of death in Darfur on Christians via Saddam and his pilots sent there via Iranian shipping. Oh and check the facts, that Russian pilots are now piloting those planes murdering the people of Darfur. Biological weapons? Don't mention the testimony of Iraqi's who sent in convoys and 2 plane loads of WMD into Syria and those warhead are now loaded on Putin sold Russian missiles aimed at Europe and the Israeli state. Nuclear weapons? Try searching for 1.77 tons of weapons grade uranium, that means BOMB MATERIAL the US forces captured after liberation. If you dig hard, you might find the intel which states Saddam had developed one nuclear bomb which was too big to mount on a Scud and was allowed to be flown out to Moscow by the GRU right before the war. But let us return to the 1.77 tons as it will touch another darling of the left in Joe Wilson and Val Plame. That 1.77 tons was refined by socialist France for Saddam via has Bill Clinton sanctions "oil for food" run by Marc Rich. The 1.77 tons was from Niger. The same place Clinton mole Val Plame sent her husband to cover up this bloody mess and it did in the sideshow the MSM bit on as it evolved into a promise to impeach George Bush , but that failed as Armitage was refused a debrief by Alberto Gonzales who was in turn skewered over it for protecting a US Presidency. George Bush is guilty of protecting a leftist European corrupt alliance as he knew Russia was corrupt, supporting the Islamocommunists of al Qaeda as he knew America could not stand alone (which if you read the Bolshevik Manifesto Putin signed off on decrees an isolated America behind it's ocean borders just waiting to be dispatched). If all of the above came out, Russia would be in a Cold War with America and Europe would have fallen into Watergate turmoil with Islamic revolutions in the western capitols. So while you bite on George Propaganda Soros publishing Scot McClellan's whore piece for profit and so Freudian complain about the MSM the real story once again blows by your Donahue nose full of fury. You were so stoned the first time in fury against America that you missed what was really occurring and you are so doped in hatred now you don't appreciate the fact that New York is New York City still. You missed the fact that 2 nuclear bombs were smuggled into the United States and were set to go off after 9 11. Try researching some dead Muslim in New York detention who died of radiation poisoning as a place to start. McClellan is sour because he is a looser like most of the people expelled from government and you are sour because your propaganda Donahue was so filled with deception if the day ever comes the majority of this story comes out you are going to be proven so foolish you will probably develop a new hate for something to try and cover up that failing too. Your failing? Where were you when Bill Clinton was allowing Pakistan to build nuclear bombs funded by Saudi Arabia? Where were you when all of the bribes going into Clinton accounts via Marc Rich set off this entire Middle East situation George Bush got stuck with? Where were you in the story of communist China blackmailing the Clinton White House and all they gleaned which has placed America in jeopardy on the Asian theater and now has Japan militarizing for a coming war? Get over your mad Mr. Cohen and see if anyone in your sphere wants the Truth and not an America bashing story or a blind eye to your politicians. Oh and for those here typing an Iran attack, that Islamocommunist nation bought several SS warheads out of the defunct Soviet Union and has them aimed at Paris and is why the French threatened to vaporize Iran 2 years ago. That brings us back to New York City which is a target of Iran if they are attacked and if President Bush does attack Iran he will not do so thoroughly because of the Donahue types so out of touch with what has been occurring for the past 15 years that when Iran does retaliate as they did on TWA Flight 800 as downed by a missile (You missed that one too covered up by Richard Clark for Bill Clinton which has now bred the Iranian situation.) that it will be you Mr. Cohen, Mr. Donahue and Mr. Ventura with hosts like you who will leave a stung Iran viable to attack America again. Iran will though use it's Russian inventory so the finger will point at Russia and allow both the defense which Donahue will champion in denying any connection. But do not think if Bush 43 does not attack Iran that the Iranian front will not attack. The plans by FARC and Chavez of Venezuela call for nuclear bombs from Iran to be installed to intimidate and attack America with five years. Lesson over. agtG

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

This past Thursday I sat and

            Sat, 05/31/2008 - 01:49 — victor charles (not verified)            

This past Thursday I sat and watched Charles Gibson state "it is not our job to debate them; it's our job to ask the questions." concerning questioning the government about Iraq's war. When I heard this I could not believe that he said this since I think that it is the media who should question the government about issues and I think Gibson abrogated his duty as a reporter by stating this.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

It's not too late to impeach

            Sat, 05/31/2008 - 01:36 — Papá Kokopelli (not verified)            

      It's not too late to impeach them. Do we really need to see any of the above dire predictions come true before Congress does anything about these traitors?   

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

I don't regard myself as

            Sat, 05/31/2008 - 00:20 — Anonymous (not verified)            

I don't regard myself as brilliant, but compared to the output of the media big shots, anchors, White House reporters, etc. I must say my observations prior to the Iraq blast off were spectacular by way of comparison. I felt "they" were giving the public a full court press. Flag waving, drum rolls, drowned out the few voices who asked for more time, more investigation. Virtually every claim the pro war gang made has turned out to be false. So whether by design, or by utter incompetence "they" have now been proven wrong, wrong, wrong. We have been and still are suffering from perhaps the greatest blunder in foreign policy history. And the way out is paved with peril.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

I don't regard myself as

            Sat, 05/31/2008 - 00:18 — Anonymous (not verified)            

I don't regard myself as brilliant, but compared to the output of the media big shots, anchors, White House reporters, etc. I must say my observations prior to the Iraq blast off were spectacular by way of comparison. I felt "they" were giving the public a full court press. Flag waving, drum rolls, drowned out the few voices who asked for more time, more investigation. Virtually every claim the pro war gang made has turned out to be false. So whether by design, or by utter incompetence "they" have now been proven wrong, wrong, wrong. We have been and still are suffering from perhaps the greatest blunder in foreign policy history. And the way out is paved with peril.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

I saw Tom Brokaw on TV

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 23:08 — Expatlv (not verified)            

I saw Tom Brokaw on TV trying to weasel his and his workmates' way out of the media's participation breathing the breath of life into The Bush Propaganda Machine. Up to that point I had quite a bit of respect for Brokaw, but NO MORE!!! Circa 2002 and after, it was clear to so many of us out here listening, watching and trying to be heard that it seemed like all major media outlets' management, 'investigative' reporters and on-screen talking heads were, instead of doing their JOBS, in a pitched battle to see which of them could insert their corporate nose further up the fundament of the Bush administration. Turns out now that they're all trying to say, "Oh, no they had their nose much further up there than we did... See! They have much more brown on theirs, than we do on ours."

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

It was obvious even before

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 23:08 — Charles Colt (not verified)            

It was obvious even before the colonization of Iraq took place that the American media provided pro-Bush and pro-war propaganda rather than objective journalism. During the buildup to the war I did what any competent college humanities student would do: I assumed that nothing in the official narrative was fact unless it could be verified, and I read and researched around it. To be an analytical person in 2002 and 2003 was a very lonely experience. Since that time, my disgust with the consolidated corporate media was so great that I completely avoided it and instead get my news from a variety of international sources available on the Internet. I urge every American to treat the media for what it is: a bad product. Stop buying this product and people who manufacture it will either go broke or be forced to improve it.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

With big corporations owning

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 23:07 — Anonymous (not verified)            

With big corporations owning the media things will not be changing to quickly. I know one thing for sure, I'll check McCelland's book out of the library before I purchase it. No way will I put money in his pocket.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

It was obvious even before

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 23:00 — Charles Colt (not verified)            

It was obvious even before the colonization of Iraq took place that the American media provided pro-Bush and pro-war propaganda rather than objective journalism. During the buildup to the war I did what any competent college humanities student would do: I assumed that nothing in the official narrative was fact unless it could be verified, and I read and researched around it. To be an analytical person in 2002 and 2003 was a very lonely experience. Since that time, my disgust with the consolidated corporate media was so great that I completely avoided it and instead get my news from a variety of international sources available on the Internet. I urge every American to treat the media for what it is: a bad product. Stop buying this product and people who manufacture it will either go broke or be forced to improve it.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

Just be aware that when (

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 22:12 — Anonymous (not verified)            

Just be aware that when ( not if ) there is another planned attack inside this country..it will be timed to prevent the Election from taking place. That way, Bush can then enact his Accumulated Powers to declare Martial Law, and Delay having the election..due to " security" reasons. It is time for the American people to wake up from the Coma State that they have been in for the past many years. Turn off their TV's and their Play Stations...throw their Newspapers in the Trash...and get their news from the Internet ..at least as long as we still have it. No wonder They want to shut it down. ( and they know who They are.) Rev. Wright was Right. Sometimes it takes blunt speech to get attention and not the lulling hypnotic words of Pacifiers that preach the Politically Correct sermons that lead to death and destruction for all human kind. You know who they are. We were warned to beware of 'shepherds that lead their flock astray'. I applaud Mc Clellan for allowing his conscience to come to the fore. It was obvious from the expression on his face many times that he was pained to stand there and lie. Now, do you think that Bush will be as brave ? Now that was Irish bull...he has to first learn the difference in lying and telling the truth. That is something that his parents never taught him. Nor the fear of going to Hell for lying !

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

How come nobody believed

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 22:06 — Anonymous (not verified)            

      How come nobody believed Hans Blix (?) and his UN inspectors when they reported they didn't find anything? I remember when they were belittled, (in cartoons and otherwise) as not being able to find anything.   

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

Oh puhleeze! The United

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 22:03 — Nikogda Nichevo (not verified)            

Oh puhleeze! The United States has been, and is, an EMPIRE. Endless acts of aggression — what are absurdly called "ears of choice" or what Scott McClellan calls "necessary wars"—are its first, middle and last name. The media were bought and paid for years ago. On Iraq they were bought and paid for during the Clinton Administration, when Madeleine Allbright got away with telling Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes that she thought the price of Anglo-American carpet bombing of Iraq, viz. the genocide of approximaterly half-a-million people from the eldest and youngest generations of Iraqis, was "worth it". The media go along with the program of the most powerful monopoly interests or they can kiss their market share good-bye. In the '60s we used to say: "Scratch a liberal, get a FASCIST" — true then, and even truer today. The neoliberals complain about the neocons, but it's really more like Monty Python's "dead parrot" sketch: while the customer and the clerk argue over whether the parrot is dead, the audience gradually realises the customer bought a stuffed bird to begin with.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

What if the White House held

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 21:45 — Anne Mates (not verified)            

      What if the White House held a press conference and nobody came in protest of manipulation? What if the media did not report when there were strings attached by the administration? How long would the White House persist in misinformation if it didn't get out to the public? What if opposing views were aired in the media on a regular basis, as is supposed to happen in a Democracy? What if the media had "chutzpah", instead of meekly aiding and abetting a campaign of lies?   

 

      

• flagged

 

 

     

I believe most reporters are

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 21:35 — Anne (not verified)            

I believe most reporters are simply "useful idiots": tools used to further Government's propaganda. Anyone with any sense and a high school education had to know from the beginning what this war was really about. Journalists knew too, but because they would not hang together and support the truth the few individual Patriots among them were picked off when they differed with the Government line. There should be instituted some form of "tenure" for journalists, so that they cannot be dismissed or dis invited to press conferences just because they ask the "wrong" questions. The idea of the "Liberal Media" is a canard put forth by Conservative Media owners to deflect the fact that the Media is simply an Ultra Right Wing tool for shaping public opinion. And undereducated Americans swallowed the concept. I get my news from the BBC.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

I've been waiting for

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 20:19 — Quinty (not verified)            

I've been waiting for someone to write something like this. For all of us who opposed the war in 2002 can remember who in the mainstream was critical. There were so few that's not hard to do. And we can recall how Scott Ridder was treated as if he were some America basher who wouldn't climb aboard. I think more than ratings and flag waving and fear were involved. Ambition, the desire to get ahead spurred most of these "journalists" on, rather than the solemn need to report what was actually going on, whatever it was. The whole country appeared to have lost its head at the time. You leave out Chris Matthews and David Gregory (a most ambitious guy) who came on air the other night to stand up for the news media's rigid adherence to high journalistic standards. They have no shame. I suppose the old virtues are still taught in graduate school. For whenever the top media guys get together they like to trot out these high virtues. If only they would put them above their careers and desire to please their corporate masters we might put some life into that old check and balance once again.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

Is anyone really surprised

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 20:11 — Marc Stratton (not verified)            

Is anyone really surprised by the revelations in McCelland's book? As a conspiracy theorist from way back; we felt duped by Bush's forces from the beginning. What IS surpising is the breaking of ranks among the Bush mafioso by McClelland. He'd better watch his back for the remainder of his days. Now, then, when can we expect that Collin Powell will write his confession about how he, too, was taken in; or is he much too embarrassed over how deeply he fell for the rush to war scenario. A pox on all their chickens.!!!

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

It's a vicious circle.  You

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 20:09 — cindi burkey (not verified)            

It's a vicious circle. You don't get access, unless you give your journalistic subject some kind of favoritism--in interpretation, the tone of your piece, whatever. what happened with helen thomas always getting the first question? and bush being the first person to take that away? in one fell swoop, he took so much power away from the press, and no one said boo about it. without the power to set the tone for questions and, in that way, access---reporters in this country have been reduced to just getting the barest information out there, IF they want to preserve their relationships with, and access to, their sources. that's why the alternative press is so damn important---they're not beholden.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

"All we like sheep are led

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 19:32 — Don W (not verified)            

"All we like sheep are led astray..." I seriously doubt that anything in media coverage will change in the future with the corporate ownership of news media and a citizenry jaded by their power as consumers.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

The  MSM should know that

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 19:23 — meteor (not verified)            

      The  MSM should know that since the beginning of the war they have not been seen by this observer, who gets his news from  the internet, often from foreign sources, several days before my wife mentions some sanitized version that she saw on  TV.   

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

....considering the damaged

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 19:21 — Anonymous (not verified)            

      ....considering the damaged reputations   in all quarters, who will now "bell the cat" ?    

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

Kudos, Jeff. I AM enjoying

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 19:20 — Diane Noland (not verified)            

Kudos, Jeff. I AM enjoying this "falling out among theives and liars." I remember well when Phil Donohue was outsed from the airwaves. I watched his show every night and absolutely loved it - and him. He was one of the few on TV avidly questioning the validity of the Bush claims. And Ashley Banfield, I remember her well too. And liked her. She was a sharp cookie. And of course Scott Ritter. I remember all you've written about. There were people screaming about not going to war but the powers that be weren't listening.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

Neither my wife nor I

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 19:05 — Harry C. Ballantyne (not verified)            

Neither my wife nor I believed the Bush spinners (our son says he can always tell when Bush is lying, if his lips are moving, he is lying!) as they galvanized congressional and public support for the invasion of Iraq by their many, many lies. So, I ask, with you, why would the supposedly independent news journalists be taken in? Because it was in their corporate interests, I believe.

 

      

• report this comment

 

 

     

If one had an ounce of

            Fri, 05/30/2008 - 18:53 — Anonymous (not verified)            

If one had an ounce of sense, one knew that the Iraqi people would not come out greeting us with flowers. The trouble with Bush and the Neocons, and their supporters in the mainstream media, is that they know nothing about the culture and history of other countries, and they buy into the garbage of the so-called "American Exceptionalism" There are many in this country stupid enough to believe that a country where the entire culture is based on making the maximum profit from every activity is qualified to lead the world. The Bush/McClellan fiasco is just proof of how the entire culture has been subverted in the name of business profits. The chickens are coming home to roost, and we're in for some terrible events throughout the world. Look for an attack on Iran just prior to the election.